Be Forewarned: Controversial this Morning
Feb. 29th, 2004 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxI know that this one has been a controversial topic for many so. . .er. . .I know this one isn't for everyone. Regarding "The Passion of the Christ"
First off, I'm not a religious person. I mean, I'm the person who when two mormons came to her door and started the typical "are you a Christian?" I flat said "No." (And if anyone has the inner desire to actually do this, I highly recommend it just for the looks on the evangelicals faces. They really don't have a comeback for that one). So, I'm not religious, but I am a sucker for ancient history. In college I took Ancient History, Ancient Tech and Civ., Ancient Art History, Ancient Architectural History, Ancient Interior Design History, all the seminars required prior to going on the study abroad semester, and the semester abroad where I spent 90% of the semester in Italy. And of all those classes only two were required. Egyptian, Minoan, Greek, Roman...I'm a sucker for all of it (And I also rec the PBS special a few weeks ago on Ancient Greece: Crucible of Civilization. I thought it was excellent). In the midst of all this love of ancient history is a fascination with the historical figure of Jesus (I liked the guy on History Channel last night that pointed out that Jesus is a name. Christ is a title.) So I'm not religious, but I am utterly fascinated with the figure who has had such a profound influence on the direction of Western Civilization. My sister was making fun of me at Christmas for watching all those History Channel specials on Jesus. Well, I suppose in tandem with the movie "Passion of Christ" they have been showing a slew of Jesus specials on History Channel including the History vs. Hollywood of "Passion."
I haven't seen the movie and I'm not really planning to. I'm fascinated with the subject, but I really don't have a particularly high tolerance for violence and the one thing that ALL reviews agree upon is the violence of the movie. Still, I've found myself almost morbidly drawn to the controversy surrounding the movie and (this is where I become a bit controversial) I think it's blown out of proportion.
Back in college, one of my roomates was a real Bible banger. I reember her and her friends getting their panties is in twist over "The Last Temptation of Christ." At the time, I admit, I rolled my eyes at them. I mean, these were people who planned (and I believe they did) go out and picket the theater. My reaction was that they really needed to get over it. It was a movie and one that was exploring the concept of Jesus contemplating a "what if..." I suppose it could be considered that I was on the (relatively) liberal side of this debate. I thought the evangelicals protesting the movie were wrong. Scorsese had the right to make his movie. Get over it. You don't like it, don't go to see it.
So here we are in 2004 and I find myself having somewhat the same reaction to the protests over "Passion." I don't understand the virulent level of hate being focused on Gibson. I think, like the villification of Scorsese, it's become overblown. Gibson has the right to make his movie. He paid for it. If you don't like it, don't go to see it. That simple.
I know all the anti-semitism charges. I saw Joel Siegel on History Channel and he says it is not anti-semitic. I read the Roger Ebert review and he has also said it isn't anti-semitic. And I remain perplexed by the people who seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that Jesus himself, Mary, and the others are Jews themselves.
Now, I'm not confused as to why the anti-semitism charges are being made. First off, there's Gibson's father's very odd points of view, and I agree with the editorial I read that said that Gibson was given a chance to state unequivocally that the haullocaust happened, and while he acknowleged the killings he bundled them in with the other deaths of WWII. So, Gibson could have gotten himself out of some of the controversy and chose not to so I'm not exactly feeling sorry for his being in the center of a controversy.
Still, I tend to think it remains overblown.
The central issue seems to be that Pilate is seen as conflicted and Caiaphus. Now if arguing actual history, I think it's more than fair to say that Pilate probably wasn't conflicted. The guy sentenced people to death all the time. There's really no great historical reason to believe that he washed his hands of the issue and left it to mob rule. Still, I don't think this movie was meant to be history based so much as biblically based. The hand washing scene is in the Bible.
Now, historically, we can put a good guess on why that is. I mean, the Gospels were written by people who a) considered themselves to be Jewish and b) were under Roman rule. How do you write about someone who was, let's admit, a political radical and at least try to minimize the danger of being seen as a revolutionary yourself? Probably by not "blaming" the Romans in your writings. So Pilate's decision was probably downplayed in the gospels and more blame placed on Caiaphus for a whole host of reasons. And the Gospel writers didn't see themselves as anti-semitic for doing that because the considered themselves part of the Jewish religion.
Still, again, the movie was evangelical and was based on a religious tendency to take the Bible as literal fact and not open to much interpretation. Making a movie about Jesus in modern times is really a damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition. If you in any way deviate from the Biblical texts (ala Scorsese) you are attacked for it. If you remain with a very literal interpretation of the texts, you are attacked for it.
The fact is that Jesus was causing political stirrings during Passover week. He had overturned the tables in the Temple. He was preaching that "The kingdom of god is now" and that the Temple was corrupt. Those in power weren't going to be happy about this situation. The power structure -- of which the Temple priests were definitely part of it -- wanted the whiff of revolution squelched. The Priests were also in the position of being in charge of an occupied country. If there was trouble there was nothing to keep the Romans from destroying the Temple themselves (which in fact they did not that much later). So the Priests were trying to preserve their country and squashing a poor rabbi whose teachings were bordering on calling for revolution... well, it's not a stretch that the likes of Caiaphus was anxious to get Jesus out of the way. And this was an incredibly violent time. People were put to death in horrible ways all the time.
At any rate it's all a matter of debate. What I find perplexing is that in many cases the same people who defended Scorsese are villifying Gibson (and vice versa). As far as I can see it's the same basic issue. They can make the movie they want. We always go on about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech also applies to those who are even taking literal interpretations of the Bible. Agree, don't agree, it's beside the point. And I don't think it's the filmakers responsibility to defend against how someone "might" interpret (or misinterpret) it. Anyone who hangs out in fandom much can say that it's really amazing how people can interpret ANYTHING. I've seen some of the worlds most bizarre interpretations just in BtVS fandom. People will think what they want regardless of what's actually on screen. (That doesn't mean that things can't step over the line... it just seems to me that from all I've read that this movie stays true to a very literal interpretation of the Bible. . .which I think is a defensible thing. ..even though I personally don't think the Bible should be taken strictly literally.)
The fact is that this wasn't taken as a historical film but a religious one. It was based on a certain set of beliefs. And this was really his religion. He has the right to finance and make his movie. We're allowed to look at it critically and disagree with it, question it, discuss it, etc. But I also believe he had the right to make it. And I think villifying him is perhaps making the same mistake as the evangelicals made over Scorcese over "Last Temptation of Christ." I don't think EITHER movie is so important in the long run that it's going to matter much in the way of modern society and see no reason to conflate the issue. Like or dislike the movie, but it's just a movie. It will be in the theater for 6 weeks and then go onto DVD. It's not really going to change anything. It's not going to turn a rational person into an anti-semite. It's not going to bring about the rise of Nazi-ism. It's not that important. It gets some weeks of publicity, and it will generate some interesting discussion. But it's not such a huge deal that I think it's worth all the controversy (at least in my opinion).
JMO. I said I was going to be controversial this morning.
First off, I'm not a religious person. I mean, I'm the person who when two mormons came to her door and started the typical "are you a Christian?" I flat said "No." (And if anyone has the inner desire to actually do this, I highly recommend it just for the looks on the evangelicals faces. They really don't have a comeback for that one). So, I'm not religious, but I am a sucker for ancient history. In college I took Ancient History, Ancient Tech and Civ., Ancient Art History, Ancient Architectural History, Ancient Interior Design History, all the seminars required prior to going on the study abroad semester, and the semester abroad where I spent 90% of the semester in Italy. And of all those classes only two were required. Egyptian, Minoan, Greek, Roman...I'm a sucker for all of it (And I also rec the PBS special a few weeks ago on Ancient Greece: Crucible of Civilization. I thought it was excellent). In the midst of all this love of ancient history is a fascination with the historical figure of Jesus (I liked the guy on History Channel last night that pointed out that Jesus is a name. Christ is a title.) So I'm not religious, but I am utterly fascinated with the figure who has had such a profound influence on the direction of Western Civilization. My sister was making fun of me at Christmas for watching all those History Channel specials on Jesus. Well, I suppose in tandem with the movie "Passion of Christ" they have been showing a slew of Jesus specials on History Channel including the History vs. Hollywood of "Passion."
I haven't seen the movie and I'm not really planning to. I'm fascinated with the subject, but I really don't have a particularly high tolerance for violence and the one thing that ALL reviews agree upon is the violence of the movie. Still, I've found myself almost morbidly drawn to the controversy surrounding the movie and (this is where I become a bit controversial) I think it's blown out of proportion.
Back in college, one of my roomates was a real Bible banger. I reember her and her friends getting their panties is in twist over "The Last Temptation of Christ." At the time, I admit, I rolled my eyes at them. I mean, these were people who planned (and I believe they did) go out and picket the theater. My reaction was that they really needed to get over it. It was a movie and one that was exploring the concept of Jesus contemplating a "what if..." I suppose it could be considered that I was on the (relatively) liberal side of this debate. I thought the evangelicals protesting the movie were wrong. Scorsese had the right to make his movie. Get over it. You don't like it, don't go to see it.
So here we are in 2004 and I find myself having somewhat the same reaction to the protests over "Passion." I don't understand the virulent level of hate being focused on Gibson. I think, like the villification of Scorsese, it's become overblown. Gibson has the right to make his movie. He paid for it. If you don't like it, don't go to see it. That simple.
I know all the anti-semitism charges. I saw Joel Siegel on History Channel and he says it is not anti-semitic. I read the Roger Ebert review and he has also said it isn't anti-semitic. And I remain perplexed by the people who seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that Jesus himself, Mary, and the others are Jews themselves.
Now, I'm not confused as to why the anti-semitism charges are being made. First off, there's Gibson's father's very odd points of view, and I agree with the editorial I read that said that Gibson was given a chance to state unequivocally that the haullocaust happened, and while he acknowleged the killings he bundled them in with the other deaths of WWII. So, Gibson could have gotten himself out of some of the controversy and chose not to so I'm not exactly feeling sorry for his being in the center of a controversy.
Still, I tend to think it remains overblown.
The central issue seems to be that Pilate is seen as conflicted and Caiaphus. Now if arguing actual history, I think it's more than fair to say that Pilate probably wasn't conflicted. The guy sentenced people to death all the time. There's really no great historical reason to believe that he washed his hands of the issue and left it to mob rule. Still, I don't think this movie was meant to be history based so much as biblically based. The hand washing scene is in the Bible.
Now, historically, we can put a good guess on why that is. I mean, the Gospels were written by people who a) considered themselves to be Jewish and b) were under Roman rule. How do you write about someone who was, let's admit, a political radical and at least try to minimize the danger of being seen as a revolutionary yourself? Probably by not "blaming" the Romans in your writings. So Pilate's decision was probably downplayed in the gospels and more blame placed on Caiaphus for a whole host of reasons. And the Gospel writers didn't see themselves as anti-semitic for doing that because the considered themselves part of the Jewish religion.
Still, again, the movie was evangelical and was based on a religious tendency to take the Bible as literal fact and not open to much interpretation. Making a movie about Jesus in modern times is really a damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition. If you in any way deviate from the Biblical texts (ala Scorsese) you are attacked for it. If you remain with a very literal interpretation of the texts, you are attacked for it.
The fact is that Jesus was causing political stirrings during Passover week. He had overturned the tables in the Temple. He was preaching that "The kingdom of god is now" and that the Temple was corrupt. Those in power weren't going to be happy about this situation. The power structure -- of which the Temple priests were definitely part of it -- wanted the whiff of revolution squelched. The Priests were also in the position of being in charge of an occupied country. If there was trouble there was nothing to keep the Romans from destroying the Temple themselves (which in fact they did not that much later). So the Priests were trying to preserve their country and squashing a poor rabbi whose teachings were bordering on calling for revolution... well, it's not a stretch that the likes of Caiaphus was anxious to get Jesus out of the way. And this was an incredibly violent time. People were put to death in horrible ways all the time.
At any rate it's all a matter of debate. What I find perplexing is that in many cases the same people who defended Scorsese are villifying Gibson (and vice versa). As far as I can see it's the same basic issue. They can make the movie they want. We always go on about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech also applies to those who are even taking literal interpretations of the Bible. Agree, don't agree, it's beside the point. And I don't think it's the filmakers responsibility to defend against how someone "might" interpret (or misinterpret) it. Anyone who hangs out in fandom much can say that it's really amazing how people can interpret ANYTHING. I've seen some of the worlds most bizarre interpretations just in BtVS fandom. People will think what they want regardless of what's actually on screen. (That doesn't mean that things can't step over the line... it just seems to me that from all I've read that this movie stays true to a very literal interpretation of the Bible. . .which I think is a defensible thing. ..even though I personally don't think the Bible should be taken strictly literally.)
The fact is that this wasn't taken as a historical film but a religious one. It was based on a certain set of beliefs. And this was really his religion. He has the right to finance and make his movie. We're allowed to look at it critically and disagree with it, question it, discuss it, etc. But I also believe he had the right to make it. And I think villifying him is perhaps making the same mistake as the evangelicals made over Scorcese over "Last Temptation of Christ." I don't think EITHER movie is so important in the long run that it's going to matter much in the way of modern society and see no reason to conflate the issue. Like or dislike the movie, but it's just a movie. It will be in the theater for 6 weeks and then go onto DVD. It's not really going to change anything. It's not going to turn a rational person into an anti-semite. It's not going to bring about the rise of Nazi-ism. It's not that important. It gets some weeks of publicity, and it will generate some interesting discussion. But it's not such a huge deal that I think it's worth all the controversy (at least in my opinion).
JMO. I said I was going to be controversial this morning.
